Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: guiloader - Gideon GuiXML library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206122 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-04 22:10 EST ------- The -devel subpackage has a .pc file but does not have a dependency on pkgconfig. This leaves %{libdir}/pkgconfig unowned and causes a few X'es in the below review. That's really the only issue, and I'm happy to let you fix it when you check in. However, there is one other question: is it worth it to package the examples? I'll leave that up to you. * source files match upstream: 98980d8c65e53f0f5288d1ebdb652b70 guiloader-2.8.0.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: guiloader-2.8.0-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libguiloader.so.0()(64bit) guiloader = 2.8.0-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguiloader.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) guiloader-devel-2.8.0-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm guiloader-devel = 2.8.0-1.fc6 = glib2-devel gtk2-devel guiloader = 2.8.0-1.fc6 libguiloader.so.0()(64bit) X (no pkcgonfig dependency) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present: ldconfig is called as necessary. unversioned .so file is in the -devel subpackage. X owns the directories it creates (%{libdir}/pkgconfig) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. X pkgconfig files are in the -devel subpackage, but no pkgconfig depencency. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED, provided you add the pkgconfig depenency to the -devel subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review